The poor boy obviously has religious views on marriage that are getting in the way of his thinking objectively. Luckily for us, people with his way of thinking are quickly becoming a minority, even in some religious communities.

He tries so hard to camouflage his bigotry by sounding like he's completely reasonable and even logical at times. He even goes so far as to portray himself as one that really likes gay people and wants them to be happy in a relationship together -- BULLSHIT. If it were up to him there wouldn't even be civil unions, yet he parades himself as one that simply wants to protect the word and definition of marriage and marriage alone.

The fact that he has to keep bringing up "mother and father" in the context of having children flies in the face of the reality that not all men and women who come together have children. If the purpose of marriage is children then we have to exclude all barren couples. Since he doesn't advocate that, it proves his argument holds no water.

mocktwinkles saidHe tries so hard to camouflage his bigotry by sounding like he's completely reasonable and even logical at times. He even goes so far as to portray himself as one that really likes gay people and wants them to be happy in a relationship together -- BULLSHIT. If it were up to him there wouldn't even be civil unions, yet he parades himself as one that simply wants to protect the word and definition of marriage and marriage alone.

The fact that he has to keep bringing up "mother and father" in the context of having children flies in the face of the reality that not all men and women who come together have children. If the purpose of marriage is children then we have to exclude all barren couples. Since he doesn't advocate that, it proves his argument holds no water.

Agreed 100%. The mother/father thing is a desperate attempt to finally deny this civil right to a group of people who are already legally able to parent children in the eyes of the law and it's HUGELY insulting to infertile, married heterosexual couples. BOGUS.

This guy tried so desperately to make it seem like his views were based on logic and not tied to his religious beliefs, but who really believed that bull? I'm glad that some educated, well-spoken supporters were there to put him in his place (as well as a pretty good audience).

This is a great video clip, thanks Metta! In another thread, I said that I didn't care about marriage for me 'cuz I didn't want the State or the church to define my partner and I. After watching this video, I've take one step further in understanding that marriage is more than saying "I love you". What Suze said about taxes is very educational and I want to know more on how marriage will benefit us.

coolarmydude saidHaving children is a function of biology.Being married is a function of sociology.The two are not mutually exclusive.Therefore, it is false to say that the purpose of marriage is to have children.

The legal and political arguments on this one have been built on the wrong foundation. Marriage is a religious right taken on as a government process, wrongly, when being christian and het were inseparable identities to Europeans.

It's no wonder that this has been a pissing in the wind political struggle in America; a place that never really got itself turned 'round the reality of church-state separation. So I don't know why leadership on this issue didn't take the position of pulling government out of religion altogether by making one law about domestic partnerships (of all kinds) and leave 'marriage' where it belongs — as a christian ritual, where it actually did have a lot to do with makin' babies and asserting laughable patriarchal dominion over everything. As I've written before, check out Tasmania where they got it right with their laws on this issue.

I think the leadership on this didn't do its homework and once 'gay' marriage is won there will be more fights behind it having to do the same work all over again.

agree with the last poster though, the marriage thing is what is getting everyone hung up. The movement should have gone about it with the term civil union and not marriage, marriage tends to be that religious event that is between a man and a women. I really think it makes the issue harder than it should be by bringing religion into it.

iracetris saidI don't know why leadership on this issue didn't take the position of pulling government out of religion altogether by making one law about domestic partnerships (of all kinds) and leave 'marriage' where it belongs — as a christian ritual, where it actually did have a lot to do with makin' babies and asserting laughable patriarchal dominion over everything.

I suspect it was because no one pushed the issue hard enough for them to care but those days are behind us and now the issue has been finally pushed to the forefront. Yay, Suze!!! You go gurl!

iracetris saidI don't know why leadership on this issue didn't take the position of pulling government out of religion altogether by making one law about domestic partnerships (of all kinds) and leave 'marriage' where it belongs — as a christian ritual, where it actually did have a lot to do with makin' babies and asserting laughable patriarchal dominion over everything.

I suspect it was because no one pushed the issue hard enough for them to care but those days are behind us and now the issue has been finally pushed to the forefront. Yay, Suze!!! You go gurl!

Because that would have been even more difficult to sell in the earlier days - it's much more facially appealing to say, hey, equal rights under existing law. It's easier to layer us in to an existing legal institution rather than revamping the institution.

Plus, everyone who is against SSM would have been against that to the same degree. They always say, "it's about marriage, we wouldn't care if you were pushing for civil partnerships with all of the same rights and responsibilities," but when push comes to shove, they fight tooth and nail against that, too.